The written report appears in
D 3774-3777 . There were no questions or
comments.

II.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

The minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of March 21, 2005, (D 3778-3786 ) were approved by voice vote.

III.

COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

A.

Comments by the President.

President Larry Faulkner addressed legislative issues first, saying there were two of major importance to the University during the current session—the appropriations process and the top ten percent admissions law. He said he “felt good about the working relationship” the University had developed with two key committee leaders, Steve Ogden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Jim Pitts, chair of the House Appropriations Committee. President Faulkner said this would not be a “bonanza year” for the University given the limited financial flexibility faced by the legislature and the importance of the challenging issue of public school finance. He said the top ten percent regulation would soon result in the University having 75 percent of the freshman class admitted by the rule unless changes were implemented by the legislature. Given the controversial nature of this issue, President Faulkner said he could not predict what would be the outcome, but hearings were scheduled to be held on the issue in late March and early April.

President Faulkner reported that the Board of Regents had recently approved the proposal for all colleges and schools at UT Austin to adopt flat-rate tuition for undergraduate students. He said he supported the 14-hour multiplier recommended by Chancellor Mark Yudof although his own proposal had originally included a 15-hour multiplier. Even though the chancellor’s proposed multiplier would result in an approximate $5 million reduction in recurring funds for the University, President Faulkner noted that the plan was similar to the one originally implemented on a trial basis by the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences and would cost students about 25 percent less than his original proposal. He said he was comfortable supporting the reduced multiplier given the better-than-expected appropriations support the University had received during the early stages of the legislative session. Given the direction preferred by the chancellor and Board of Regents, President Faulkner said he thought the one-hour reduction was a reasonable step to take. However, he said there was no way to predict at this point how UT Austin would fare financially given that the legislative session is still underway.

President Faulkner reported that a sizable portion of the Experimental Sciences Building (ESB) was shut down due to a gas line leak. He called the ESB a “poster child” for building maintenance problems faced across the entire campus by the University. He said UT Austin did not have the financial resources to undertake the serious reconstruction costs that were required at this time to make the ESB functional. Faculty members housed in the ESB whose research is gas sensitive have been relocated to the Molecular Biology Building. ESB laboratories used for teaching have been made functional due to the heroic efforts of personnel from the Physical Plant who managed to install a new gas line within only about one week’s time. President Faulkner credited Provost Sheldon Ekland-Olson for his oversight in getting the teaching laboratories reopened in such a timely manner.

President Faulkner reported that a long process leading to the development of a proposed charter governance document for the new Jackson School of Geological Sciences has been completed. The proposed charter has now been approved by the faculty and staff of the three units that will be transferred into the new Jackson School; these units are the Department of Geological Sciences, the Institute for Geophysics, and the Bureau of Economic Geology. President Faulkner said that

3824

Provost Ekland-Olson had recommended that the proposal for the Jackson School’s governance plan be approved and plans for implementation be initiated. President Faulkner said he would soon send the proposed plan to Professor Linda Reichl (physics), chair of the Faculty Council, for consideration by the Faculty Council Executive Committee.

B.

Questions to the President — None.

IV.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR — None.

V.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT.

A.

Report on the joint meeting of the UT Faculty Council and Texas A&M Faculty Senate, Monday, March 28, 2005.

Chair Elect Alba Ortiz (special education) reported that approximately 75 people, including legislators and their assistants, were expected to attend the joint meeting. She thanked everyone for the great response and reminded those who had not yet responded that the deadline for ordering lunches, Wednesday, March 23, was quickly approaching.

VI.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

A.

Revision of the recommendation for change in TheHandbook of Operating Procedures concerning disciplining of a faculty member (D 3734-3736).

Professor Sue Heinzelman (English and Grievance Committee chair) moved that the revised version of the document on disciplining of a faculty member (D 3734-3736) be adopted. She said the length of the revision was the consequence of efforts to carefully spell out the steps taken when a faculty member is disciplined by the administration. She said the committee thought it was important to include a statement addressing the process to be followed to restore status to a faculty member in a case where disciplining had been implemented and the faculty member was later found to be innocent of the charges. She pointed out that the proposed recommendation had been worked out between the committee and the president, the provost and legal counsel, Patti Ohlendorf. In response to a request by Professor Kenneth Flamm (public affairs) for a brief summary of the major points of change in the current proposal from the one previously passed by the Faculty Council, Professor Heinzelman said the revised proposal specified procedures, such as the exact number of days allowed for each procedural step, when a faculty member contests what he or she perceives as inappropriate disciplining. She said the revision included a very detailed account of how such a faculty member would proceed with his or her defense. There being no further questions regarding the issue, Chair Reichl called for the vote on proposed revision. The proposed revision was unanimously passed by voice vote.

B.

Faculty Council resolution endorsing the report from the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics: Principles, Rules, and Best Practices (D 3749-3764).

Professor Michael Granof (accounting and UT Austin COIA representative) moved that the Faculty Council endorse the spirit of the COIA report regarding academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics, principles, rules, and best practices and authorize him to vote in favor of the document. He reported that both the men’s and women’s athletic councils at the University had discussed the document and generally endorsed it in spirit. When Professor Desmond Lawler (civil, architectural, and environmental engineering) asked why “in spirit” had been inserted in the motion, Professor Granof explained that the words were there because the document only specified best practices and did not make specific demands on universities. He said there might be some best practices that the University might disagree with and not want to adopt. He said that “in spirit” meant that our University favored the coalition’s move towards reform. Chair Reichl said

3825

she thought there was national concern about the 95 percent of athletes who do not move on to professional sports, and the intent was to make sure that integrity exists in the academic side of a student athlete’s university experience. There being no further questions or comments, Chair Reichl called for a vote on the proposal, and the proposal passed unanimously by voice vote.

Professor Marvin Hackert (chemistry and biochemistry and committee chair) said the committee had reviewed the history of issues pertaining to the Course Instructor Survey at the University and was in the process of reviewing how peer institutions handle their surveys. He said the most meaningful times here at UT Austin were 1990 when the surveys were made mandatory and 1996 when a study of the surveys was commissioned. Professor Hackert said the survey tries to accomplish the three following functions: assist faculty members in improving their courses and instruction, help students select courses, and assist administrators in evaluations for tenure, promotion, and teaching award decisions. Professor Hackert said that the Faculty Council had asked the provost’s office for clarification of handling procedures for survey results since there was concern that the process varied across campus. In an effort to move toward standardization of the procedures in the current semester and deal with issues regarding record storage, the committee was recommending ideas in its interim report that was handed out at the meeting (See Appendix A).

Professor Larry Abraham (curriculum and instruction) asked for clarification regarding the statement in 5c on the handout that said faculty members would be given materials they could either destroy or request to be preserved through redaction and typing. He said current University guidelines require all original forms be kept for a period of years so all student comments can be considered in tenure and promotion decisions. Professor Hackert said that the committee was proposing that the University adopt as its official copy the recommended scanned version. When Professor Abraham asked if the scanned versions of the forms would be made available for departmental and college review, Professor Hackert said they could be if privacy protection for students could be assured. He said the committee was suggesting that the objective bubble sheet information would be made available to students, administrators, and faculty members, but that only selected comments would be voluntarily made part of the record for promotion or teaching considerations. Professor Hackert said the committee was suggesting that faculty members should not be required to keep copies of all survey forms in a secure place for seven years. Professor Abraham said he did not think allowing faculty members to choose the comments to be saved provided for standardization and complied with the University’s current policies regarding promotion and tenure. Professor Hackert said he thought a problem existed when one instrument is expected to meet the needs of the faculty member for instructional improvement and the administration for performance evaluation.

When Professor Bruce Palka (mathematics) asked if the policy would apply to teaching assistants and assistant instructors and therefore put financial demands on departmental staffs, Professor Hackert said he thought the committee’s current recommendation would actually reduce the costs of maintenance and storage. Professor Flamm said he thought the recommendations needed further clarification and were potentially inconsistent with one another; he also expressed concern about overhead costs, especially with regard to the skill level required for redacting. Professor Janet Staiger said she thought the key issue pertained to the confusing legal situation about providing access to the written comments while protecting the privacy rights of students. Professor Hackert said the committee was focusing on how to deal with the larger issues in the long term but wanted to be sure that policies were fairly administered in the near term. When Graduate Student Association representative Erik Malmberg (educational administration) asked about the current

3826

policies across campus regarding access and use of survey information regarding teaching assistants (TAs) and assistant instructors (AIs), Professor Hackert said he thought there was variability. He said he thought some sort of threshold was generally used by most departments for decisions regarding reappointment to TA and AI positions. When Professor John Hasenbein (mechanical engineering) asked if an electronic format were being considered for the surveys in the near future, Professor Hackert said the committee was considering the possibility, but the time frame was not immediate.

Professor Michael Sharlot (law) said the committee was struggling with the use made of negative student comments and that there seemed to be a consensus among committee members that anonymous, negative comments dashed off in a short time period were not a reliable source of information for making major decisions regarding tenure and promotion. Professor Sharlot said one of the great concerns of the committee was how to adequately protect the privacy right of students and avoid problems regarding the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Professor Abraham asked if it would be possible to avoid FERPA problems by simply informing students that their comments would not be given privacy and that they could then choose to provide the comments under that basis. Professor Hackert said the idea was being considered, but the main concern was that negative student comments should not be used because they could be interpreted out of context without any substantiation. Professor Pauline Strong (anthropology) said she was concerned because qualitative data were not useful if taken out of context. She said that just one negative or positive comment should not be used against or for a person without taking into account the total number of each. Professor Hackert said the entire inquiry had emerged because of concerns regarding whether forms were being modified and who was making the changes. He said this led the committee to decide that everything needed to be copied which was expensive in terms of overhead. He said the intent was to minimize the burden of FERPA regulations on the individual faculty member. When asked if there would be a vote on the recommendations, Professor Hackert said no; however, the committee had hoped to see administrative changes put in place for the spring semester and needed to get the proposed ideas out for discussion.

Nick Staha (finance and history, representative of the Senate of College Councils) said he thought that students generally were directing their comments on the surveys toward faculty members with the intent of improving courses and teaching rather than affecting promotional evaluations or teaching awards. He asked if the committee had explored the idea of eliminating the written comments. Professor Hackert responded that the committee was considering every option. He said everyone liked the written comments, but there was concern about abuse when comments were taken out of context. Chair Reichl said that she would adjourn further discussion of the issue at the current meeting, but she thought further discussion would occur at future meetings.

B.

Report of the Athletics Council for Men.

Professor David Fowler (civil engineering and committee chair) distributed three handouts summarizing male athlete academic performance (See Appendix B). He then addressed four issues that had been raised at the November 2004 Faculty Council meeting: (1) grade point averages of student athletes by sport over a number of years, (2) outcomes of the student athletes who do not go on to professional sports, (3) graduation rates for student athletes by sport, and (4) involvement of the coaches in discussions regarding student athlete academic progress. Professor Fowler said he thought the major concern had been about the “other” column with regard student outcomes. Since the athletics department has a policy of providing tuition for students who have finished their eligibility and want to continue pursuing their degrees, he reported that some athletes who had not graduated were still pursuing degrees at UT. For example, a student who had not finished in the six-year period because of participating in the Olympics was back and about to complete his degree. Professor Fowler pointed out that the number who left for professional sports totaled 28 out of 230, or approximately 12 percent. He also pointed out that some of the sports

3827

have small incoming classes, so graduation rates can be dramatically lowered when only one of two athletes don’t graduate. In addition, he said the coaches had been asked to be present when academic progress is monitored by a subcommittee of the men’s council. He said there had been some logistic problems scheduling the meetings, but the difficulties were largely due to the schedules of the subcommittee members rather than the coaches.

Professor Jack Gilbert told Professor Fowler that the information was very helpful, and he was pleased that the subcommittee would be meeting with the coaches. When he asked if the students who had left UT Austin for professional sports were included in the transferred or left in good standing category, Professor Fowler responded negatively, saying the two were separate categories. He said when athletes transfer to other universities that the program at UT tends to lose track of their future outcomes. He said that an athlete who leaves for professional sports could be in either good standing or not in good standing. When Professor Lawler asked if the word graduated in the handouts always meant graduated within six years, Professor Fowler said that was his understanding regarding the data. Professor Fowler clarified that an athlete who returns to school and then graduates sometime after six years from his entering the University would not count as graduated due to federally-imposed definitions. Noting that the female athletes were graduating at approximately the same rate as all female students but that male athletes were graduating at less than two-thirds the rate of all male students, Professor Paul Woodruff (philosophy and Plan II) asked what was being done to correct the imbalance. Professor Fowler said that council members are hoping the meetings with coaches and counselors will assist in improving the imbalance. When Professor Jacqueline Angel (public affairs) asked for additional information regarding athletes who transfer, Professor Fowler said there were a variety of reasons, but he did not have a complete breakdown of the categories. He said that the federal guidelines count any student who leaves in good standing by transferring to another university against the University’s graduation rate.

Vice President Patti Ohlendorf (institutional relations and legal affairs) said there were differences in monitoring of the academic performance between the men’s and women’s programs. As an experiment and possible transition, the men’s basketball and baseball programs have been transferred to the head of academics in women’s athletics to see how that system works with the two male teams. She also pointed out that the all three major men’s teams—football, basketball, and baseball—had experienced coaching changes during the time covered by the reports. Chair Reichl thanked Professor Fowler for the actual numbers, saying that the data would help in pointing out areas where problems needed to be addressed.

VIII.

NEW BUSINESS — None.

A.

Recommendations for changes in mission, name, or composition for Standing Committees of the General Faculty (D 3765-3773).

Professor Abraham (curriculum and instruction and Committee on Committees chair) reported that his committee responded to the request regarding the potential need for equal representation on standing committees of faculty, staff, and students by polling all standing committee chairs. Committee chairs were asked for their input regarding needed structural issues and changes for the committee and their perceived need for increased staff and student representation of the committee. Based on the input, Professor Abraham said committee members did not think it was appropriate to honor the blanket request that the standing committees be structured with equal representation from the three groups. He said that in a number of cases the committee is recommending that the balance of representation be changed with additional representatives from designated groups. He said there had been an effort to provide continuity within committees by designating two individuals from a group with staggered, alternating terms. In general, it was decided that student representatives would continue to serve one-year appointments. Professor Abraham asked anyone with concerns or questions to contact him in order to improve the package

3828

of recommendations. He said he hoped to present the committee’s proposal in two parts at the next Council meeting. The first would be all of the proposed committee recommendations where he receives no feedback, and the second would include the committees where he receives suggestions for improvement or questions regarding the proposed structure and composition. Committees falling in the latter group could then be singled out for separate handling.

B.

Proposal to change the Rules and Regulations relating to the election of chairs of the standing committees (D 3806-3807).

Professor Abraham reported that the second item from the Committee on Committee dealt with a change in the rules of the Faculty Council with regard to the election of chairs of standing committees. In an effort to improve continuity of committee functioning from year to year, the committee is proposing that chairs be elected in the spring semester preceding their year of leadership service. He said the pool of potential chair candidates for a committee would be those individuals currently serving on the committee whose service continues the following year or who were eligible for reappointment to the committee. There would be a provision that the individual who is eligible to be reappointed and who is elected by the committee to serve as its chair would automatically be reappointed.

C.

Proposal recommending the continuation and expansion of the Bridging Disciplines Program (BDP) as an interdisciplinary certificate program (D 3787-3788).

Professor Archie Holmes (electrical and computer engineering and Educational Policy Committee chair) reported that the Educational Policy Committee had been asked by Provost Ekland-Olson to review the Bridging Disciplines Program (BDP) as one of the mechanisms for interdisciplinary education at UT Austin. He said the committee is endorsing the continuation and expansion of this certificate program.

D.

Resolution endorsing the recommendation for the Task Force on Enrollment Strategy limiting undergraduate students to a maximum of ten long semesters in residence to complete a baccalaureate degree (D 3789-3790).

Professor Holmes said Provost Ekland-Olson had asked the Educational Policy Committee to review a number of recommendations made by the Enrollment Strategy Task Force.
As a result of this review, the committee is recommending that the University allow undergraduate students a maximum of ten long semesters in residence to complete their bachelor’s degrees.

E.

Proposal recommending that University grade point average be based on in residence grade point average (D 3791).

Professor Holmes reported that the second Enrollment Strategy Task Force recommendation reviewed by the Educational Policy Committee was that the in resident grade point average be utilized as the University grade point average for making academic decisions. He said the committee is endorsing this proposed recommendation.

F.

Proposal recommending the elimination of the table of scholastic standards and changing the criteria for probation and dismissal (D 3792-3795).

Professor Holmes reported that the third Enrollment Strategy Task Force recommendation that was reviewed by the Educational Policy Committee involved the required grade point average (GPA) that undergraduate students must achieve in order to avoid dismissal from the University. He said the committee is recommending that a student who is on probation because his or her GPA has fallen below a 2.0 will need to sufficiently improve to achieve a 2.0 GPA during the

3829

following semester or face dismissal from the University. This proposal would eliminate the table of scholastic standards, which is currently based on the number of credit hours a student has taken.

G.

Recommendations for change in the readmission after second dismissal policy (D 3796-3797).

Since Professor Urton Anderson (accounting and Admissions and Registration Committee chair) was traveling away from Austin, Chair Linda Reichl presented the recommendations proposed by his committee. The committee is recommending that the admission of students returning to the University after second dismissal require approval by the dean of the student’s respective college. If the student wants to transfer to another college, then the committee recommends that the dean should not admit the student without consultation with the prospective college to determine if the transfer is realistic. In addition, the committee is recommending that a student dismissed for a third time may not apply for readmission to the University.

H.

Recommendations for change in enrollment as a nondegree seeker policy (D 3798-3800).

The Admissions and Registration Committee is recommending that each college establish with Admissions the college’s policy with regard to degree holding nondegree-seeking students and that entry for these students would be limited to two long semesters. College review and approval would be required for additional enrollment for students in this status after each semester.

I.

Recommendation for change in the Coordinated Admissions Program (CAP) Policy (D 3801-3803).

The Admissions and Registration Committee is recommending that whenever admissions through CAP exceed 60 percent of the total external undergraduate transfer admissions, a review of the CAP requirements for entry to the University will be conducted and new requirements established as appropriate.

J.

Recommendation for increasing the number of transfer credit required for admission from twenty-four to thirty semester credit hours (D 3804-3805).

The Admissions and Registration Committee is recommending that the requirement regarding number of transfer credits that must be completed to be considered for admission to the University be raised from
twenty-four to thirty
hours.

guard the expected trust of privacy between students and faculty regarding students' written comments on CIS forms,

continue to permit faculty to receive legible written comments that will help improve our teaching, and

assure uniform retention of public records,

the Ad hoc Committee appointed by the Faculty Council to study ownership, FERPA, and other issues associated with the administration of the student CISs recommends, subject to approval by the Office of the Provost and the University attorneys, the following interim procedures in the CIS process.

1) The Provost’s Office will distribute a memo describing these procedures to faculty and administrators with clear instructions that any tampering with the sealed evaluations will be a significant violation of University policy.

2) CIS evaluation forms will continue to be picked up in the departmental or college offices. At the end of the classroom evaluation, CIS evaluations will be placed in an envelope, sealed, signed on the sealed flap by the student conducting the CIS survey, returned to the Departmental or College office, and sent unopened to MEC.

3) Upon receipt of the original CISs in their sealed envelopes, MEC or another University office will scan all CIS evaluations (objective and written parts) to serve as a permanent / “official” record for retention purposes of CIS evaluation data. Only summaries of the objective portions will be available subsequently for evaluation purposes, although the University will hold the student evaluation records for the retention period legally required for official documents.

4) After CIS evaluations are scanned under the supervision of MEC, the originals will be returned in a sealed, signed envelope to the faculty. Any faculty member receiving an envelope that was opened or appears to have been tampered with should report this immediately to Lee Smith, AVP for Legal Affairs.

5) With the return of the original documents will be the following instructions to the faculty member: (a) A reminder that these documents are protected by FERPA. Thus, no effort to identify the writer is permissible. Additionally, photocopies of the originals should not be made. (b) The faculty members should take the information needed as feedback to improve their teaching from the “originals” immediately upon receipt. The recommended retention time for the “originals” would be no longer than two weeks, which is the time length assumed needed for reviewing the student comments. (c) After securing the feedback for improving teaching, the faculty member should either destroy the “originals” or voluntarily submit such comments as the faculty member wishes to be considered for purposes of teaching awards or evaluations to their Department or College. Immediately upon receipt of such “original” documents, the Department or College is to have the content of the comments typed, making every effort to “de-identify” personal information, and once the typing is completed the “originals” should be destroyed. Department or College staff handling the comments for these purposes are not to permit access to them by others nor make any effort to identify the authors of the comments. (d) If faculty, departments, or colleges elect to keep the originals longer than the recommended retention period, they need to be instructed and prepared to secure the “original” documents in such a way as to prevent anyone, including administrators, from accessing the documents in order to protect the FERPA privacy rights of the students.